"OS X 10.9, which is internally codenamed 'Cabernet', will focus on various 'power-user' enhancements and take core features from iOS, according to our sources. Unlike operating system updates such as OS X Leopard and OS X Lion, OS X 10.9 will likely not be an overhauled approach to how the operating system feels and functions." Features for power users and features from iOS? Seems like an oxymoron. Still, if they manage to finally fix the Finder and Spaces, I'll be happy.

Well, as a new mac user I generally like the osx, but there are quirks here and there that makes me want bang my head against the wall... hard... - one of the things is editable path in finder - Windows, Gnome, KDE....one can copy it, edit, etc... not in Finder - tiny thing but highly annoying...

That will open a prompt that will allow you to browse using Finder to the location you type/paste in.

Going to be honest, 99% of the time I use Spotlight.

Your right but I agree with the OP on this one... The UI sets up inconsistent expectations when it comes to this particular widget...

1. There is a Command combo for "Go to folder" and "Connect to Server". Im fine with that, the more keyboard shortcuts the better.

2. Under the "Go" menu on finder, both of these items appear at the very bottom of the menu, grouped together - my assumption is that they do this because both of these operations are context-insensitive. Makes sense to me.

3. If you try to customize the finder toolbar, there is an item for "Connect" which is essentially a toolbar shortcut for "Connect to Server". There is, however, no corresponding button for "Open Folder".

???

Why? Why does "Connect" get special treatment here. If anything "Open Folder" is a much more common operation... I would get the logic if ALL of the items on the toolbar were context sensitive, but "Connect" isn't and it still gets love... Everywhere else the two seem to be paired together.

I don't get it. All I want is a button for it. It doesn't have to be a default item - I can add it myself, but they have to make it available in order for me to do that...

If anyone at Apple is listening... I want a button for "Enclosing Folder" too I know the difference between "Up" and "Back" even if most of your users don't. Making me use keyboard shortcuts for this when you could just add a button on a customization menu is user-hostile. The people who don't know the difference between "Up" and "Back" are the same people who wouldn't know how to customize the finder toolbar anyway...

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. I'm looking for a file, I go to spotlight, I type "myfile.whatever", spotlight finds me a list of files. One can do this on a folder level with in Finder, and get to pick relative or global as part of the process.

This might not be the way you are used to working, but it works well enough. It definitely is more the case of "not my way of working" rather than "not correct" though.

I can't think of a reason why I would not just navigate to a specific directory in the file system otherwise. Maybe that is just the way I always worked, but both MacOS (pre X) and BeOS (before Open Tracker) worked like that too.

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. I'm looking for a file, I go to spotlight, I type "myfile.whatever", spotlight finds me a list of files. One can do this on a folder level with in Finder, and get to pick relative or global as part of the process.

But it doesn't work for hidden files and folders, which is almost always what I am using Cmd+Sht+G to get to... I do development and there are alot of important files buried in hidden folders in my home directory that I need to get to now and then...

This might not be the way you are used to working, but it works well enough. It definitely is more the case of "not my way of working" rather than "not correct" though.

Spotlight simply doesn't work at all for the scenario I am describing.

I can't think of a reason why I would not just navigate to a specific directory in the file system otherwise.

Because it is hidden and you can't in Finder unless you change the global behavior - and I don't want to change the behavior because I don't want my finder windows muddied up dot files. I use "Open Folder" when I need to get to a hidden directory. Of course there are other ways to deal with this - I just think having it available on the toolbar as a button makes sense is all.

I know that one but it's behaviour is baffling for me - why it can't show location of the current folder instead of the last one typed in? Without it, it's kinda annoying to use... (yes, I know about services, automator and option to create shortcut to the file/folder but it would be million times easier to simply type mentioned shortcut and copy-paste, even part of, the path)

That is why a pure Darwin OS with X or DirectFB and some stock DE would make a difference. Apple could even charge for it in the form of a supported package or allow to boot to such an environment in their commercial CD and give a push to the OSS packagers.

They provide the source and have a fantastic OSS community but they are not able to take advantage. Why?

And what precisely makes OSX user a power user, if I may ask?
Ability to drag icons around? or maybe deep knowledge of the few simple keyboard shortcuts? tools?
I don't want to diminish people's ability to have in-depth knowledge about computers. But let's be honest here - most OSX/iOS users are clueless. And that's how it should be. OSX/iOS should be simple and dumbed down, so even the most clueless users have their way through it when they need to accomplish important task on time.

Your attitude, sir, is precisely why so many people get turned away from free software. Get off your high horse and drop your superiority complex if you ever hope to increase the number of users on your preferred platform (I asume it's Linux given your past comments here).

marcp's past speaks for itself. He is known to bash anything that isn't GNU/Linux. He's a lot like Paradox Uncreated without the weird misogynistic religious rants. Like any community, this one has its fringe members.

Anyway, back on topic...I definitely feel OS X still has a lot of merit for power users. And "power user" doesn't have to mean terminal junkies and code crunchers. I have a friend who is a professional musician, who refuses to use Windows or Linux because they simply don't work well with his workflow and don't support the industry standard software he uses. I consider him a power user.

I also feel that Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate are power user OSes. I use 7 Pro on my main workstation, and not just because it was bundled with the machine. I've tried various *nix OSes for daily work and I always end up frustrated due to hardware issues, so I stick with what the machine was built for. Given the vast software support of Windows, along with the ability to install tools like PowerShell and Cygwin, it makes sense to keep the original OS on here.

The opposite is true of my netbook; it's one of the original Acer Aspire One units that was initially designed with GNU/Linux in mind, even though this particular model shipped with Windows XP installed. Under Windows, performance is horribly slow even on the OCZ Vertex 4 SSD I put in it, and there are persistent bugs with both the wireless and wired chipsets that render it unusable for its intended purpose under that OS. However, with Crunchbang Linux installed it is nearly as responsive as my workstation, wireless and wired connections are flawless, and RAM usage is a fraction of what it was under Windows. If not for the small screen and keyboard I would be able to use it as a long term production machine if necessary.

My mantra has always been "use the tool that fits the job", and all the major OSes (and many of the minor ones) have something to offer the power user. You just have to be open to the possibility that your favorite pet OS isn't necessarily the best choice for everyone (speaking generally, not specifically to you toast88).

I don't know... Maybe they are programmers? Website Developers? People who spend 90% of their time in a terminal and like it, but want the UI to be a bit more configurable? You know, the same exact kind of people who use Linux for the most part...

I have used Linux, OpenBSD, Windows, and OSX for extended periods in actual day to day use over the years. I now spend almost 100% of my time in OSX. I actually prefer it over Gnome or KDE, mostly because the higher quality apps but as "odd" as Finder is there is still plenty there for a power user. It just needs some tweaking.

And that's how it should be. OSX/iOS should be simple and dumbed down, so even the most clueless users have their way through it when they need to accomplish important task on time.

I have to say the only thing I can think after reading this is you have never actually used OSX... iOS maybe, but not OSX. There is a hell of a lot of serious functionality in OSX... Sure, Apple has added some fluff for the iOS crowd (Mission Control???) but overall it is a very deep and sophisticated desktop - far more configurable than Windows and at least on par with Gnome/KDE, but you find yourself having to resort to the terminal far less than with Linux (AppleScript is funky but it works).

Its not perfect by any stretch, but it isn't nearly as bad as you make it sound... Regardless, there is substantial portion of the OSX user base that is not clueless and uses it like the Unix it actually is...

However, I didn't really talk about third-party tools that people use. These may make them power users, most certainly. But the base OS? is it really that hard to understand ins and outs of iOS/OSX?

I mean, come on ... the point I made was the exact the point Apple Developers and spokes persons make all the time - they just sugarcoat it by saying that it's all about simplicity. I added, that this simplicity is mostly for the **good** of the "clueless" [that means: "not computer person"] users.

You know, it's funny how people like to bash everyone who happens to have some other opinion [even if the intentions were actually good].
Nobody's trying to convince anyone that OS X is better/worse than OS Y. We were just talking about difficultiveness/intuitiveness of the system. At least that's what I though, right before some people decided to come up with my alleged "bad past" [not mentioning the fact that I have no "bad past". I'm just a man who comments on some topics from time to time, just like all of you. And yes, I am standing strong for software freedom, just like you don't care about it that much, standing strong for other things].

Where on earth did you get an idea of the end user being incompetent? [in my own post]
I didn't say that. Maybe you guys think that's the case. However, I cannot be held responsible for the things people think and perceive, even [or especially] when their perceiption is "bad" [that is: different from my actual intention].
D'oh, I even made it clear that I don't think people are incompetent:

I don't want to diminish people's ability to have in-depth knowledge about computers.

I just pointed out obvious reasons for which OSX is being perceived [and designed] as an easy-to-use OS. I actually think it's a great thing, you know. OS should be easy to use.

So, I refuse to take a blame here. I didn't do anything inappropiate and I'm not the person you think I am. That said, I don't care about your false impressions and opinions. You can continue judging people on these flawed criteria, but that's your problem, not mine.

Have a productive day.

BTW voting people down only shows how easy it is to manipulate on individual opinions. One person votes it down - others follow blindly without giving it a second thought - **independently**. Well done. You showed your individuality and critical thinking.
Voting systems like this one shows dark side of human nature - "burn the witch". And believe it or not, but not all people care about voting results.

1) People choose to use an OS because they like it [more than they hate it].

There are very few ordinary people who don't have some complaints about their setup. Its one of the reasons why Thoms' advise to constantly change Operating systems is great. You find somethings that are good in some places, and somethings that are bad.

However, I didn't really talk about third-party tools that people use. These may make them power users, most certainly. But the base OS? is it really that hard to understand ins and outs of iOS/OSX?

Actually yes... Im not talking about 3rd party tools... Im talking about just the base OS and Finder. OSX is just as complex as Linux or any other OS, if not more so. Once you drop to a terminal its Unix - almost everything you expect to find is there, and a lot of the lower level configuration is done through the command line - just like Linux. Finder is extremely configurable, but a lot of the knobs and dials are buried in options that must be configured from the terminal - again, just like Linux.

The UI does go to great lengths to hide a lot of that complexity and make it simple, and I appreciate that - but it doesn't eliminate it. It just hides it because you seldom need it. Im a developer and frankly I don't feel like I am being robbed of much flexibility or power by Finder - it is actually pretty damn functional. It strikes a pretty good balance, it just needs some tweaks here and there.

Just saying I don't see why the "for the sake of the clueless user" argument applies to OSX any more than it would to any other OS. There is nothing magical or overly simplistic about it (regardless of what Jobs lead people to believe) - it is a Unix with a very nicely thought out GUI.

A lot of work went into making it simple without making it dumb. It shows.

You know, it's funny how people like to bash everyone who happens to have some other opinion [even if the intentions were actually good].

I really wasn't trying to bash you - I was just replying to what you posted...

TBH a lot of people I know that like unix use a Mac because it is the best desktop *nix in their opinion.

I used to like using my Mac when I was at university for Java and the big of PHP that I required to do by assignments. Though I added some good opensource/freeware to extend or replace some of the built in programs.

Same things that makes Windows or Linux power users: the inability to understand their own lack of knowledge, thinking they're God's gift to personal computing. And they have the wildly inaccurate forum posts to back it up.

I beg to differ. Things are not as simple.
You have people who use their computer more or less only for web browsing, e-mail, facebook and Skype. They are the vast majority and definitely not 'power users'.
And then you have those that do some heavy duty productive work. It is in many cases rather complex, involves juggling different file formats, having multiple files open at the same time in different windows etc. These have been left mostly in the cold in recent years by a new generation of software designers at the big vendors who were focused on winning the race on 'mobile' and 'social'.

The two things I want from Mac OS are a newer version of OpenGL and a better filesystem. OpenGL 4 would be nice but even 3.3 would be a significant step forward.

For the filesystem I'd love it if Apple adopted the HAMMER filesystem from DragonflyBSD. It's an amazingly good filesystem and it has no patent issues like ZFS. Apple has always been happy to use BSD-licensed code in the past, HAMMER is more of the same.

HAMMER makes no sense for OS X. Most Mac systems use tiny solid state drives now and HAMMER requires a decent amount of space to take advantage of it's features. Even Matt said when he released it that it needed 500GB or something like that.

What apple needs is a good SSD optimized file system.

I think everyone needs to stop asking for HAMMER or ZFS. If apple does anything, they'll make their own new file system.

HAMMER makes no sense for OS X. Most Mac systems use tiny solid state drives now and HAMMER requires a decent amount of space to take advantage of it's features. Even Matt said when he released it that it needed 500GB or something like that.

Don't know much more about HAMMER than a few reads of the docs, but I don't get your argument.

Sure, Apple might want/need to look at an optimized filesystem for SSDS, but that filesystem won't/shouldn't work anything like HAMMER/ZFS/BTRFS and it is a different argument entirely...

Thing is they STILL need a filesystem suitable for large storage pools, something with similar semantics to these modern filesystems - copy on write, data de-duplication, checksums, cheap snapshots, deep reliability features, etc. A 500GB minimum wouldn't be a problem for most users who would use this - I have 6TB or so I would love to mount locally on my Mac if only there was a filesystem I trusted to put it in.

Just because most of their machines boot from SSDs now doesn't mean users don't want to plug in a storage array... The filesystem I want doesn't even need to support booting - Im fine with it being only for non-bootable volumes. As far as I am concerned HFS+ is fine for boot volumes (even SSDs) - I want something for storage arrays, and HFS+ is simply too inflexible and untrustworthy for that use case.

You're off by an order of magnitude. The Dragonfly BSD installation docs recommend a minimum of 50GB for HAMMER, which is within the range of even crappy little mSATA SSDs and high end USB flash sticks these days.

If you mean HFS, it was designed in 1985 for the Macintosh - a single threaded OS at the time. The fact we are still using HFS is slightly perplexing, but it's not the exact same version as the 1985 vintage. HFS+ changed things quite a lot, and since then Apple have added case sensitivity and journalling (HFSX and HFSJ.) Yes, I think we'd all like something a little less tied to another age, but those that cry over HFS+ usually do so because of the bad memories of Classic Mac, rather than the fact that it is "fairly" stable and "pretty" reliable now.

HFS+ is "reliable" because frankly, it doesn't do much. IMO it's kind of pathetic that a cash flushed tech company like Apple is so behind the curve when it comes to some fundamental computing technologies. Specially since they love to brand their desktop OS as "the most advanced OS in the world."

Well, that's a pretty vague retort, if you don't mind me saying. What is it you expect is should be doing that it doesn't?

It journals, it has case sensitivity, it stores metadata (has the notion of forks), includes ACL's and UNIX permissions. It does tick a lot of boxes. Spotlight was also developed by a team containing Dominic Giampaolo, who was part of the engineering team that created the BFS for BeOS. Fairly sure he still works for Apple in the Filesystems division also.

But you obviously believe something is missing, and I'm genuinely intrigued as to what that is?

It's the XXI century, support for case sensitivity has been a given for 2 to 3 decades. And yet, it is an after thought in HFS+'s implementation, to the point that some applications still can't function on a case sensitive HFS+ volume in 2013. That is sad. Even sadder that Apple still touts "case sensitivity" as a major feature for their "most advanced OS on earth."

For a more detailed take on the issue, I will refer to Syracusa's review on ars technica:

Calling case sensitivity an after thought for Apple is unfair. Apple specifically pursued a system that was, wisely for their audience, case-insensitive. Apple specifically pursued supporting a system that preserved that case insensitivity while supporting case-insensitive file systems. The Backward compatibility of HFS(+) to support 30 years of Mac-formatted drives is something they usually get criticized for not doing.

It's the XXI century, support for case sensitivity has been a given for 2 to 3 decades.

Um.. its default. Case insensitivity actually *requires* extra work because the underlying UTF8 (ASCII, or however you encode the characterset) uses a completely different and unrelated value to represent upper and lower case letters, for both Latin and certa)in non-Latin alphabets (greek and cyrilic come to mind.

And yet, it is an after thought in HFS+'s implementation,

I think that's a bit unfair. As someone else commented, it's actually backwardly compatible with the original floppy format - just like DOS FAT (also case insensitive in it's original format, and much more limited in actual file naming.)

to the point that some applications still can't function on a case sensitive HFS+ volume in 2013. That is sad. Even sadder that Apple still touts "case sensitivity" as a major feature for their "most advanced OS on earth."

That is down to the programmers. It's nothing to do with Apple. If the coders assumed something that wasn't true and failed to test their software correctly, why should that be Apples fault? I've only ever had three instances of this being an issue:

(1) Printer driver for an obscure Advent network printer (exchanged it for an Epson and that still works flawlessly.)
(2) Adobe Creative Suite (not sure which version, possibly last but one)
(3) Autodesk Sketchbook (app store) which they fixed fairly rapidly.

Of these, only Adobe was unsolvable - and that was only a demo anyway.

For a more detailed take on the issue, I will refer to Syracusa's review on ars technica:

Siracusa is extremely anal and likes things "just so". I listened to his podcast "Hypercritical" religiously, and still listen to the "Accidental Tech Podcast" which he contributes to. He knows his stuff, but he always takes the absolute extreme point of view. He's not a good candidate for a full rounded discussion of HFS+ really.

Having said that, he's spot on about some of the things he mentions, but I'm going to be honest and say some are just petty or pointless. A lot of what he is asking for is server class functionality that not even Windows clients implement.

The two things I want from Mac OS are a newer version of OpenGL and a better filesystem. OpenGL 4 would be nice but even 3.3 would be a significant step forward.

This always pisses me off.

Thanks to the iPhone usage of OpenGL and their inputs for OpenCL, Apple has brought life back into OpenGL, and then they always have an outdated implementation full of proprietary extensions on their desktop OS.

I see comments like that often... I started with Lion so my history with OSX is rather limited. What is so condescending about it? Seriously, I'm curious. I mean stuff like Launch Pad (imo) is useless, but I remove it from the dock and forget it exists... Same for photo booth and a lot of other frivolous stuff. I have my gripes, but the underlying OS and Finder are pretty solid to me...

Is it all the iOS style stuff or is it other things I am not noticing because I started with it so late?

I had been an OS X user from 10.5 to 10.7 and then I sold my MacBook in frustration, but I've kept up with the evolution of OS X.

I've always felt that Apple's philosophy was to allow you to do things only the way they felt it would be best, keeping settings and customizations to a minimum. Their way always had to be the most simple and limiting possible, barely allowing you to get the job done.

While that might be great for someone who's scared of their computer, for many proffesionals who DO know how to use a computer it all feels very frustrating, not being able to make your machine actually yours.

What is worse is that app developers adhered to Apple's philosophy and made their apps as spartan as humanly possible.

Different people, different needs - maybe your usage pattern was more compatible with what Apple offered. Unfortunately for Apple we are different snowflakes - each with his/her own needs. Why not offer some advanced customization?

For a lot of people a computer is a hammer, they don't really care of what is under the hood, they care about the computer enough to get the job done. For a lot of people the computer is really the apps they run on it.

This is the market Apple goes for, MacOSX and Mac Hardware is all about running the apps you need, some use Final Cut, some use Adobe's creative suite etc.. They don't care about the os and certainly don't want to customise it.

Customised OS and hardware make it less stable and not as easy to diagnose.

This is not to say that MacOSX is only for professionals and that only professionals only use MacOSX, i know plenty that use Windows and Unix/Linux.

However it's always worth understanding the market or where MacOSX is aimed at to understand it's behavior. It's a supported system that you can send off or take into any Apple store, it's a tool, a hammer to allow you to do the work you need.

For most of my personal tasks, such as photography and other media the workflow in MacOSX is much better than Windows, i prefer Aperture to Lightroom and MacOSX gets out of the way and lets me run aperture and photoshop well in my workflow, no annoying pop ups, no nothing, just the apps. I don't need to customise the OS i just need it to be reliable and run those apps.

The designers who have Adobe CS at home on Windows machines, say they prefer using a Mac version out of the two.

For me at the time there was a familiar shell, had support for Java and PHP and expose and space was miles ahead of anything on Windows XP or Vista (this is 2005) and I prefer spaces implementation of virtual desktops.

Since Windows Vista or 7 (can't remember which introduced it), the live preview on the alt-tab has been good enough and I can use dexpot for anything else.

For a lot of people a computer is a hammer, they don't really care of what is under the hood

And still it's so much more than a simple tool ... It's cool that we can do stuff for these kind of people and make money off their unwillingness to learn, but in the long run they're spoiling all platforms. I don't want to live in a world where all I can use is Mac OS X and Metro apps.

For a lot of people a computer is a hammer, they don't really care of what is under the hood, they care about the computer enough to get the job done. For a lot of people the computer is really the apps they run on it.

This is the market Apple goes for, MacOSX and Mac Hardware is all about running the apps you need, some use Final Cut, some use Adobe's creative suite etc.. They don't care about the os and certainly don't want to customise it.

Actually, as a professional media designer who heavily uses the apps you mention I care a hell of a lot about what is under the hood (in both hardware and operating system). In general I have liked where OSX has been going... but the last release was full of useless crap like the launchpad and making a mess of how apps save files. The autosave works fine for small files... but if you happen to work on very large files it causes stalls. This is why adobe has not implemented the new "Apple" way of saving and why apple had to backpeddal and give power users back some of their saving options back when holding the option key down.

It seems that they have not been catering to the creative market the way they once were. We have yet to see a decent update to the mac pro and I really wish they would move to a more robust filesystem. I have always had better luck with color management on OSX.... but they seem to have fallen behind in not adopting 10-bit color support for high end photographers. They used to lead with quicktime... now they have dumbed down the framework with a priority toward playback and poor support for 3rd party tools that extend it. For what ever reason they refuse to make a 64 bit update to quicktime for windows making it much more difficult to have cross platform workflows.

I have concernes about what I will be using in 10 years for content creation. Everyone is chasing consumers these days and forgetting about the needs of creators. The new rumored OSX "multitasking" feature of pausing apps sounds like what life was like under system 6 before they had real multitasking... WTF would I want go back to that. Microsoft shoved the useful part of their os into the "legacy" bin and threw a half baked xbox interface on the front. Linux has had a few distros claim to target content creation... but none have really paned out so far.

I think what Apple is trying to do is balance usability for the masses with power for the power users. It's trivial to break out the power underneath the pretty interface. I think they are doing a great job with it, though I can't speak for current releases since the latest OS X version I've used is 10.6.

I've always felt that Apple's philosophy was to allow you to do things only the way they felt it would be best, keeping settings and customizations to a minimum. Their way always had to be the most simple and limiting possible, barely allowing you to get the job done.

I don't find that at all. There is ALOT of customization available in OSX. They just bury it in flags you have to flip using terminal commands. I find it much the same as Gnome in this regard, although I think Gnome goes too far with it... But Im talking about functional stuff, not look and feel. I might be weird, but I don't want much of a custom look and feel, I just want a good one.

I know in the earlier versions it was all candy striping and jellybean buttons, but fortunately I didn't have to use it during that period. If they bring anything like that back Ill just move on to something else, but for now Im content.

What is worse is that app developers adhered to Apple's philosophy and made their apps as spartan as humanly possible.

Well I like the spartan aesthetic, OSX seems more "transparent" than any other OS I have used - its there but it stays out of the way graphically.

While that might be great for someone who's scared of their computer, for many proffesionals who DO know how to use a computer it all feels very frustrating, not being able to make your machine actually yours.

You can break OSX to your hearts content via the terminal. The gui works quite nicely and focuses on smooth workflow. If I want to fiddle, I can always use the BSD subsystem or use the myriad of unix tools via macports or brew.

Granted, their latest efforts (after SL) havent really added much to the experience...

Not sure what i expect or what i want from MacOSX, ML gave me Expose back which was my biggest annoyance with Lion.

I would like a new Filesystem, i had a couple of file system crashes in Leopard and Snow leopard, however i haven't had one in Lion or in Mountain Lion, so i don't know if the issues i had have been resolved and HFS+ is any better. It has put me off HFS+ for a bit.

I agree with other posters that ZFS would be too heavy for a client OS, which is a shame as i would love to have something as powerful as ZFS and not have to worry about silent corruption, i could live without dedup, snapshots and compression. (I would use timemachine over snapshots), if it meant a more lean Filesystem.

Apart from that i don't mind finder, ive never really had a problem with it. The only ones i had was no option to cut and paste in finder, that was fixed and merging folders which couldn't be done before and has been fixed in ML (i.e. you couldn't copy a folder with the same name on top of another folder without it deleting the original folder).

I would like to see all the skeumorphic stuff removed, i used to like the calendar and contacts but they look really crap/tacky.

The rest of the built in apps work well for me, Mail, safari etc..

Personally if i had the choice i would have liked apple to have spent some time on the iLife stuff like iPhoto as i like to use this to store my everyday photos i sync with my phone (other photographic work is done in aperture). iPhone and a lot of the iLife apps are old, sluggish and need a rethinking in some areas (sharing in iPhoto is absolutely terrible).

The article was referring to multi monitor handling of fullscreened apps. In OS X, if you fullscreen an app, it will spawn a new space (virtual desktop) and fill the screen in that space. It's a neat window management shortcut for devices with small screens (laptops) since you can quickly swipe between spaces in OS X. On my MacBook Air, I always fullscreen a terminal window so that it's always just a couple of swipes (or keystrokes) away.

However, with a multi monitor setup, fullscreening an app will cause the app to take over the current monitor, leaving the other monitors with nothing on them. One could argue that a user with multiple monitors doesn't really need to fullscreen an app since they have enough screen real estate to play with. Maximizing an app should be plenty enough. However, this behaviour is broken, and should be fixed.

Careful there, multi monitor support among the free unices is even worse that OSX's. I'd love to have a sane way of supporting multiple screens with different orientation, something which is handled without an issue in either OSX or Windows.

I've stopped believing in Apple's ability to deliver a new OS that doesn't either seem half-baked or simultaneously break everything that used to be good. The last two OS X releases have been more or less bombs (or more accurately, Mountain Lion marginally fixed a couple of the things that were horribly wrong with Lion, but it's still much worse than Snow Leopard - unbelievably slow all around and LaunchPad still feels like a hack they wrote overnight). At the same time I've been quite unimpressed with many of the changes to iOS in the last couple of versions. They had all the time in the world to make multitasking better than anywhere else, yet they just hacked it on in a way that's simply laughable and obviously inferior compared to any other smartphone platform. And the fact that modal dialogs are the default for notifying about wireless hotspots, or in fact are anywhere to be found in a modern OS, when there are plenty of alternative notification options they can just copy from other OSes, boggles the mind.

Anyway, back to OS X: Here's a list of third-party apps I need/use to "pimp" my OS X experience and why. (Please note the why!!) If Apple had any sense they would implement these basic things first and stop this hype madness machine that they've been sucked into feeding the past few years:

1) BetterSnapTool: Lets me tile windows side-by-side just like Windows 7 "Aero snap" does. I couldn't live without it and honestly, I don't know how anyone else does either.

2) TotalFinder (or XtraFinder): I *do not* primarily use these for the tabs (are you listening Apple?). I use them because they give me back logical features I enjoy in other file managers on other platforms, such as putting folders on top, showing hidden/system files, *cutting and pasting*, auto-resizing column width, bringing back colorful icons in the sidebar, copying file path to the clipboard, and opening a Terminal window anywhere.

3) Default Folder X: It lets me right-click and take action on files/folders within Open/Save dialogs! Need I say more? It also lets me open Finder windows from within these dialogs, or transfer path from Finder to the dialog. I'd be much happier having this functionality built right into the OS, but instead I've got to settle for this proprietary kludge.

4) SecondBar: Because I want a menu bar on my second monitor. It just makes sense, no?

5) NTFS-3G (with OSX FUSE compatibility layer): I need to be able to write to external NTFS drives. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who wants to be able to share files larger than 4GB with my Windows-using friends.

6) Time Machine Scheduler: I don't want my Time Machine running every hour. It spins up the hard drive and distracts me with the loud noises all the time. Why isn't there a built-in way to manage how often backups are made?

7) iPhoto Library Manager: because iPhoto itself seems incapable of maintaining a non-corrupt library, even though I barely use it.

8) Enqueue: because iTunes doesn't let me play files off a network share.

9) TextWrangler: Because TextEdit lacks any sort of syntax highlighting. (Yes I could use Xcode, but it's a pain to have to open that beast when I just want a quick look at something.)

If Apple were to implement even 1/10 of these features I would be ecstatic! But I'm not holding my breath. The current short release cycles model seems decidedly slanted toward new and visible flashy features, not on adding basic functionality to features that are already there.

2) TotalFinder (or XtraFinder): I *do not* primarily use these for the tabs (are you listening Apple?). I use them because they give me back logical features I enjoy in other file managers on other platforms, such as putting folders on top, showing hidden/system files, *cutting and pasting*, auto-resizing column width, bringing back colorful icons in the sidebar, copying file path to the clipboard, and opening a Terminal window anywhere.

With you on most of these, except cut/paste. You can cut and paste in the Finder, though I'm damned if I know why Apple made it so difficult to find. You copy, then move (either hold the option key down when choosing paste from the menu, or press command+option+v). They call it move, but it's cut and paste. Of course why they even bother to *show* the cut command in the edit menu is beyond me if they aren't going to do a damn thing with it.

5) NTFS-3G (with OSX FUSE compatibility layer): I need to be able to write to external NTFS drives. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who wants to be able to share files larger than 4GB with my Windows-using friends.

Not to quibble, but this one isn't really Apple's doing. Microsoft is damn near unwilling to license NTFS to most companies. There have been a few over the years, but Apple's not one of them and incorporating ntfs-3g, or otherwise reverse-engineering NTFS themselves, would open them up to a potential legal minefield. As we saw with the Tomtom FAT32 incident, Microsoft is exactly the opposite of unwilling to sue over filesystem patents when the profit is high enough, and oh boy could the profit be high if they managed to sue Apple over that. Of course, ExFAT is always an option if you want to share large files equally between Mac and Windows (they both support that fully out of the box, though XP requires an update to support it) though it's not well-suited to large, non-flash media. Ms is not shy about licensing ExFAT, I suspect this is mostly to make sure ExFAT remains the standard filesystem for SDXC media. They have no similar motivation to license NTFS, and have always kept that one as close to the chest as they could.

8) Enqueue: because iTunes doesn't let me play files off a network share.

I don't understand this one. iTunes is a steaming pile of shit, but even it has always played files off a network share for me without complaint. I was using it to do just that not even an hour ago. Indeed, given that OS X mounts network shares to local directories (under /Volumes by default for the Finder) as every other UNIX does, I don't see how iTunes would even need to know if the files are remote or local. You've got me curious, can you elaborate?

You can cut and paste in the Finder, though I'm damned if I know why Apple made it so difficult to find. You copy, then move (either hold the option key down when choosing paste from the menu, or press command+option+v).

OMG, this tip alone made my day! Can't wait to astound my Mac-using friends by telling them about this.

Of course, ExFAT is always an option if you want to share large files equally between Mac and Windows (they both support that fully out of the box, though XP requires an update to support it) though it's not well-suited to large, non-flash media.

Another golden tip!! What is the disadvantage if I were to format a large hard drive with ExFAT?

8) Enqueue: because iTunes doesn't let me play files off a network share.
I don't understand this one. iTunes is a steaming pile of shit, but even it has always played files off a network share for me without complaint.

You are indeed correct, I stopped using it so long ago that I forgot the exact problem. The main problem as I recall is that if you absent-mindedly open iTunes without the network share connected and try to play a list of songs from the network, it starts trying to play each one and then marking each as missing. It becomes impossible to stop the process once it's started without quitting ASAP. And if I recall correctly the only way to fix the missing status afterwards is to replay or re-add all of the files. Needless to say I was not impressed by iTunes' handling of network files and was pleasantly surprised by how unproblematic Enqueue is in comparison.

Aside from that Enqueue is nicer than iTunes in many other ways - small footprint, fast, unobtrusive, full-featured yet simple, with an interface like iTunes but with all the cruft removed. It also plays FLAC and Ogg Vorbis if you're into that. The $10 price seems a little high it's true, but for anyone looking for an iTunes alternative I recommend it.

What is the disadvantage if I were to format a large hard drive with ExFAT?

Because it's essentially FAT32 with support for large volumes and files added. While not directly compatible with FAT32, it does retain most of FAT32's bad points. It's highly unoptimized, prone to fragmentation, and can become corrupted without much effort as it only holds the filesystem information at one location at the beginning of the drive. Plus, it's not journaled, and we all remember what that's like. It's fine for SD cards or other removable flash media, but I would never advise its use for anything other than quickly swapping files between systems on a thumb drive or sd card.

Aside from that Enqueue is nicer than iTunes in many other ways - small footprint, fast, unobtrusive, full-featured yet simple, with an interface like iTunes but with all the cruft removed. It also plays FLAC and Ogg Vorbis if you're into that. The $10 price seems a little high it's true, but for anyone looking for an iTunes alternative I recommend it.

Now I have to give you a thumbs up for an awesome tip. I'd never heard of Enqueue before, and so far it's doing exactly what I need it to do with a much lower memory footprint than iTunes.

1) BetterSnapTool: Lets me tile windows side-by-side just like Windows 7 "Aero snap" does. I couldn't live without it and honestly, I don't know how anyone else does either.

The snap drives me mad in Windows 7! It works really poorly on dual monitors.

2) TotalFinder (or XtraFinder)

One day I might try it, but I have no issues with Finder personally. But then I didn't come to it expecting it to work like Windows/a Linux DE/BeOS.

3) Default Folder X: It lets me right-click and take action on files/folders within Open/Save dialogs!

That's actually one of the biggest security flaws in Windows. Lock down your system, restrict users access - then let them open whatever they like via the Open dialog. Yes, one can also prevent this hole - but it's amazing how frequently it isn't plugged!

4) SecondBar: Because I want a menu bar on my second monitor. It just makes sense, no?

No. Shortcuts. That and, in my workflow, the second monitor is used for more static content.

5) NTFS-3G

Just use network shares? Mounting any non native file system is icky.

6) Time Machine Scheduler

Agree

7) iPhoto Library Manager: because iPhoto itself seems incapable of maintaining a non-corrupt library, even though I barely use it.

It has been getting progressively worse.

8) Enqueue: because iTunes doesn't let me play files off a network share.

Google Music. I listen to my music at home or work with nothing more than Chrome.

The snap drives me mad in Windows 7! It works really poorly on dual monitors.

BetterSnapTool actually works better than Windows 7 on multiple monitors, and it's fully customizable regarding how wide you want the "snap zone" to be. By default it's very small but still big enough that it works on multiple monitors (with some precise mouse positioning). I have it set a bit wider, but not quite as wide as on Windows, and I find that to be perfect.

Btw, a free version of most of these features is available by installing BetterTouchTool and just disabling the trackpad features.

2) TotalFinder (or XtraFinder)

One day I might try it, but I have no issues with Finder personally.

Since it's just a Finder extension and it's free, why not give XtraFinder a spin? It's got a lot of really nice features. And you can always uninstall it if you don't like it.

3) Default Folder X: It lets me right-click and take action on files/folders within Open/Save dialogs!

That's actually one of the biggest security flaws in Windows.

You're talking about the security of Windows' implementation, which has nil to do with how Apple might implement it. I am talking about the user experience when performing basic file operations (not including execute) - rename, copy/paste files and create folders - it's incredibly annoying to have to open a separate Finder window and browse back to the same place just to accomplish this.

@the rest of your comments, all I can say is it comes down to preferences.

You're talking about the security of Windows' implementation, which has nil to do with how Apple might implement it. "

Yes, but I understand why Microsoft did it their way. If you are going to allow half the functions that Explorer allows, why not give them all? This is why I don't see Apple's approach as wrong - i.e. a file dialog is not Finder, so you must use the correct tool for the job.

Well, you *can* create folders by default (though it's possible some apps disable that feature), so that's not an issue - but do you really believe that renaming a file or indeed, copy and paste have any place in a file open/save dialog? Personally, I don't. I think, as I said earlier, if you have no preconceptions or expectations, Finder doesn't really cause too many issues. It's when you bring expectations from else where that it falls down. But then, Windows doesn't have Spaces, so for me it is less optimal to use. It's all down to personal preferences, as you also identified ;-)